Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
Feb 9, 2013 8:00am EST
was signed by bill clinton in the 1990s. there's an old joke about a village by which everybody is employed by taking in everyone's laundry. it had this effect in the bronx where people opened child care and basically everyone took in the child. it's like i have to work now. there's no affordable day care. i'll go to work caring for your kid. and you go to work caring for my kid. now we're both employed by the economy. if we just switch who's watching who's kid, now we enter the -- >> it's a fundamental assumption about who's a good mother, right? a good mother is someone who is middle class and has a husband, right? and therefore, you staying home with your child and your middle class and your husband is good for your child. but if you are poor and unmarried then you staying home with your child is somehow bad for your child. and in fact what you should do is go work at undercompensated prices while your child is in child care. >> because if you have welfare, you'll be resented. >> exactly. >> because welfare is page you. >> but when you talk about this as a priority, and i think
Feb 2, 2013 5:00am PST
by bill clinton, and the clinton administration briefly flirted with supporting her proposals, which would have reduced illegal immigration and toughened enforcement. in the last decade, the face of restrictionism has been joe arpaio and that, i think, has produced much less favorable political conditions for what essentially in many respects could -- there are some liberal ends to a stronger immigration position. what you're seeing, a tighter labor market at the lower end of the income scale would benefit an american working class that's disproportionately black and lati latino. >> the data has been murky and increasingly less murky that the wage effects of our current immigration regime don't hit, for instance, high school dropouts or low skilled workers like in the labor hierarchy that are native born, as hard as previously thought. there are some dissentures in that, and an economist at harvard is one of them. was there any point of interaction that you're not actually hurting native born workers? i can see a political argument in that respect. >> i want to hear from you what you
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)